LOL: Speaking for Ayn Rand. That’s presumptuous. Let’s see what she wrote about dictatorships: Ayn Rand:”Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.” Well that pretty much refutes your assertion. I don’t quote Ayn Rand because she’s God, I quote because her works of fiction and non-fiction are pure genius, precious, sacred, and holy, and irrefutable—and deserves credit for that.
Simple solution to the mess, intended or not: Reject statism and altruism and embrace capitalism and selfishness. The West isn’t faltering because of too much profit; it’s failing because of too much sacrifice.
I can certainly understand why a Russian might say that ..... .... but it might be a good idea for you to name one or two examples of why the U.S. would make such a statement. Well? Here's your chance - speak up.
No not everybody. In fact the nuclear inspection team charged with looking for evidence said they could find no evidence of an existing nuclear program. And part of everybody believing the nuclear weapons program was because of American lies about aluminum centrifuge tubes and of course the totally phony Television scam by Powell. But yess if chlorine gas is considered a WMD then there is a possibility that Saddam used it. So we spent trillions and thousand of American lives because of a common industrial chemical.
The reasons for why the Establishment big money interests wanted a war with Iraq are many. You should try to come up with a few on your own first though .. since nothing you have stated thus-far indicates that you have gone down this path. Cheney was just one person .. the VP does not run the Military Industrial Complex.
The best answer is not one that is considered politically correct in America. But you will get all the facts you need to understand the reasons in this article HERE, although I would have preferred a different title to the article. It was written, incidentally, before the actual invasion of Iraq by two CIA analysts.
Read the article carefully. The way you put it isn't the way I would put it. But if you need a simple answer, the answer would be as follows: ultra-Zionists with a Likudnik vision for Israel drew up a blue print for a new agenda for Israel and the US called the "Clean Break". This was written as a policy paper for Benjamin Netenyahu in the mid 1990s. During the 1990s, they worked on promoting their agenda, trying to work closely with the military industrial complex and so-called Christian Zionists. The confluence of their interests became forged into a project called the Project for a New American Century, which was also an organization which actively promoted certain foreign policy positions, including the US basically establishing hegemonic control over the Middle East. Several countries in the region, which happened to be anti-Israeli and against US hegemony in the region, were slated for 'regime change' through various means. Iraq was seen as one of the first targets for this project. The people who espoused these viewpoints became key figures in the Bush administration and 9/11 gave them the pretext to pursue their agenda under the rubric of the 'war against terrorism".
The explanation is in the post .. what part of "military industrial complex" are you having trouble figuring out ? Perhaps the "wars are profitable" tid bit of common knowledge has eluded you ? Actually he pretty much did! While Cheney was part of the political Establishment - and a happy pawn at that. The idea that Cheney was the only one making money is preposterous. .
I am not well informed about the details of the Syrian situation, so I won't argue your points. Perhaps you're right about Syria. Your last sentence (in bold print) concerns me. For sure, MOST governmental decisions are made aside from those concerns. Perhaps that's why so many Americans have so little respect for government. But if you're right, the answer isn't to give in to hatred toward government. Since the voters have the ultimate say, then the real answer would be for the voters to care enough about the situation that they actively seek out candidates who want to introduce altruism & humanitarianism into the decision making process at a much higher rate. I know there are candidates who fit this mold. They are just too small a minority right now. Voters have the power to change that.
No, it doesn't. Because she would have been smart enough to see that president Assad isn't a "dictator". And even if he were a dictator, she'd still view him as preferable to the Al Qaeda savages trying to replace him. In fact, any person of sound mind would view Assad's government as preferable to his savage enemies. Not sure why you're having such a hard time with something so obvious. Because despite Assad's authoritarian impulses, he is thousand times better than Al Qaeda and ISIS. And there are no other choices. It's either Assad's secular coalition or the head-chopping maniacs. Those are the only two militarily viable factions vying for power inside Syria. Anyone who roots for Assad's downfall is rooting for Al Qaeda and ISIS to conquer and enslave the entire population of Syria. Actually, they're derivative, boring, and pretentious.
Light years ahead of you. Repugnant nonsense. The west is faltering because of too much statism brought about by the increasing atomization of society. Unfortunately, your solution would only ensure more statism, since it aggressively promotes the very thing (atomism) that is causing the problem.
LOL. You keep believing that—as Lennon sang, whatever gets you through the night. BTW: If she was as derivative, boring, and pretentious as you shrill, you’d be right, and she’d be a pragmatic supporter. But being the Objectivist she is, she’d more likely hope they’d slaughter each other so the capitalists would be free to come in and make life good again by making tons and tons of money. Now, wouldn’t she
Any govt program makes someone rich. That is why I oppose the Federal road building program - it made too many people rich. And rich is bad. Naked socialist power is good.
